Masisi kin's court drama continues
Sharon Mathala | Wednesday July 5, 2023 06:00
According to the initial case management report, the relatives are not willing to settle their matter out of court or even agree on settlement talks.
The President's relatives are at war with each over the half-a-billion-pula water tender.
The dispute, which has reportedly angered President Masisi involves the Goodhope Sub-District water supply scheme 2.2 contract for P549,699,654.70 which was a joint venture between G&M Building Services (Proprietary) Limited and Tianyuan Construction (Tianyuan).
According to the court order, the court is going to determine whether Pilane was ever a shareholder and or director in the company.
Pilane is also supposed to prove whether he ever tendered for the project and how it came to be that he is no longer a part of the company.
The President's nephew is also expected to prove to the court if the director-general (Rtd Brigadier Peter Magosi) of the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS) service played any role whatsoever in the affairs of the first defendant (their shared company) regarding the tender and in particular what was the reason for his involvement in the alleged retrieval of a copy of a cheque.”
According to the report, the court will also hear why there was an instruction to issue a cheque to the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP).
The case will be in court next month for final case management before the trial starts. So far the President’s nephew through his lawyers has written to BDP’s treasurer Satar Dada to inform him that he would be called to give testimony on the matter. Sordid details surrounding the controversial Water Utilities Corporation (WUC) tender for the Goodhope Sub-District water supply have exposed how the first family, Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), and now the DIS are all involved in government tenders.
The first family's war and greed over government tenders is being exposed in the ongoing court battle initiated by Pilane who claimed: “Soon after gaining information that the first defendant had been awarded the tender, the fourth defendant started giving unreasonable and/or unlawful instructions to the plaintiff regarding the execution of the first defendant's business, which the plaintiff declined to implement.” Giving an example of one such unlawful instruction, Pilane said his aunt asked him to arrange payment from the tender money to the BDP.
“The fourth defendant had inter alia, instructed and expected the plaintiff to arrange for payment of five percent of the Goodhope Sub-District water supply tender contract sum to the BDP, which plaintiff on behalf of the first defendant declined,” reads Pilane's court papers.
According to Masisi’s nephew, after refusing to give BDP some of his tender money, his aunt threatened him. Meanwhile, his aunt hit back to say her nephew is imagining things. Denying the instruction Pilane alleges was given to him to donate to BDP, Masisi’s sister said: “This is an afterthought meant to scandalise the fourth defendant and Ms Mmutle.”
The case continues.